Shane Watson retires from Test cricket

YAAAY

He definitely had that Adonis cricketing look that is so marketable from a business perspective...Well spoken, tall, broad, blonde hair, chiselled jaw...Was "in" with the lads in the dressing room, selectors etc...he had everything there for the taking... Watto Watif???

I disagree with the thought he could have been a legendary batsman. I think has he focused on it solely he would have been injured less and been a far better batsman though. The biggest thing that impacted his career was his own bowling ability, which was of course the source of so many injuries. If he wasn't as good a bowler he would have never been used, would have been injured less and focused his training more on his batting. He'll now go down as a capable player who for a brief period was one of our best.

I have a feeling he always saw himself as an opening test batsmen in the vein of D warner, and he was paired with a more subdued player in S Katich...so his partnership with C Rogers would have been ideal for him... I think it really did his head in to be moved around the order so much, his stats tell that is best position was opener, that's what he wanted...he had it at one point, and then he lost that opening position...the story was so he wouldn't be as exhausted when he was bowling...but he was really managed too much with his bowling, either rest him, or play him, either bowl him as a bowler or play him as a batsmen, I think the fact he did two things never allowed him to focus on the one thing and excel at it...such is the all rounders dilemma...Steve smith was once a bowler, and then turned is whole focus and attention onto his batting. What a master stroke to focus on one discipline....such is the human mentality, which is to excel by focusing on one thing and becoming great at it. there are obvious exceptions to this... So what if watto focused to become a truly legendary batsmen, or become a legendary bowler....he could have been either...but wanted to chase both and was kinda average at both....lack of commitment to one discipline was his ultimate failure....and being assertive with his batting position at the top of the order "if" he chose to become a batsman... Thankyou for reading and please leave any feedback on my writing style or my opinion, its all welcome and helpful!!!!

Botham was a genuine match winner whereas Watson has never come close to that. I think it's fair to say that he was a very average all rounder.

Farewell sweet prince

So ... on the basis of one innings?

He scored an unbeaten 160 against South Africa for the Prime Ministers XI

People keep expecting the results of a batsmen and yet say he shouldn't be in the team as a batsmen alone. It's just a case of whatever suits their cause for the argument. For some reason he was expected to perform more than others. Has always held himself well and is a true gentleman.

I agree, Matth, that's a pretty fair assessment. I think you make a very good point about his better ODI record, and him possibly just overthinking things in Test cricket.

Why was it that Doolan was selected again?

Darren Lehman summed it up pretty well in 2013: when asked if Watson deserved a spot based on his batting average of 35, he said, "Well, I reckon he's a pretty good bowler, so as an all-rounder, yeah. No dramas." Apart from those two AB Medal years, it's true he wasn't a stand-out with either discipline, but he did enough with the bat - 28 scores over fifty in 59 Tests isn't abysmal at all - and his bowling was perfect for holding together an attack and providing some reliability and variety. He did the job as an all-rounder and the stats show that. Why does he have to stack up against Botham and Sobers and Kallis? We can't have legends all the time. Sometimes we're just gonna have to get over it and be happy with what we have, and what we had in Watto was pretty decent.

But still, what quality batsmen missed opportunities? I'd say possibly only Phil Hughes with every other option tried there failing worse than Watson anyway (Quiney, Doolan, etc.).

I'm not sure you can say Watson was persisted with for an extended period based on potential. Once he settled into a single batting spot he won consecutive Allan Border medals. Clearly being judged for two years in a row the best cricketer in the country is why selectors persisted with him. That and no all-rounder showing any ability function in both roles at any high level.

No, though he's showed signs that he can (Dubai for example). He's scored decent runs in the County warm-up games so he should be persisted with for an extended period. By extended I mean a year or two (not Watto's very of an extended period - being a decade).

None. Though I would have gone with a proper batsman at three and not played an allrounder during a long stretch of Watto's run there. He wasn't exactly bowling a lot at one point...

What well performed all-rounders have not gotten opportunity?

Marsh is yet to show he can bat at 6 either though.

Hail Watto. He became a parody of himself in the end but to average 35 with the bat and 33 with the ball puts him comfortably in all rounder territory. His limited overs career has been so much better, because I think Watto does better with a clearly defined role where he doesn't get to overthink things. In an ODI he has a clear remit to score this many runs off this many overs, or bowl 7 overs like this, etc. In a test match he struggled to adapt to the changing tempo and requirements within an innings. Still he was very good for a couple of years, and until the coming of M Marsh this past year, he really had no challengers. Looking at Australian allrounders, there hasn't been any I can recall since Benaud and Davidson over 50 years ago that had as successful a career as Watson. Maybe early Steve Waugh before he gave up on the bowling. Two more years of the Katich / Watson opening partnership and Watson could have been seen in a very different light. But I would have been happy with that career if it was handed to me.

Really good analysis